Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Capital punishment sentencing (30)
- Capital punishment (5)
- Crime reduction (3)
- Community policing (2)
- Discrimination (2)
-
- Entrapment (2)
- Law Enforcement (2)
- Problem-solving policing (2)
- Active pursuit (1)
- Aggressive policing (1)
- As applied (1)
- As-applied (1)
- Attenuation (1)
- Boston policing (1)
- Broken Windows theory (1)
- Broken windows (1)
- Broken windows policing (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Capital punishment (International law) (1)
- Capital punishment of juvenile offenders (1)
- Capital punishment of offenders with mental disabilities (1)
- Chicago policing (1)
- Compstat (1)
- Counterintelligence (1)
- Crime rate (1)
- Crime-specific stop (1)
- Cultural norms (1)
- Double jeopardy (1)
- Education (1)
- Espionage (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 54
Full-Text Articles in Law
Www.Wildwest.Gov: The Impact Of The Internet On State Power To Enforce The Law, Terrence Berg
Www.Wildwest.Gov: The Impact Of The Internet On State Power To Enforce The Law, Terrence Berg
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler
Michigan Law Review
Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …
The Need For Racial Profiling: Negative Fallout Of The Wen Ho Lee Case, Ibpp Editor
The Need For Racial Profiling: Negative Fallout Of The Wen Ho Lee Case, Ibpp Editor
International Bulletin of Political Psychology
This article describes a counterproductive theme within public discourse on racial profiling, as the Wen Ho Lee case has been resolved.
Losing More Than Time: Incarcerated Mothers And The Adoption And Safe Families Act Of 1997, Mariely Downey
Losing More Than Time: Incarcerated Mothers And The Adoption And Safe Families Act Of 1997, Mariely Downey
Buffalo Women's Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly: The Limitation Of Defendants' Statutory Rights By Judicial Decisions And Legislative Revisions, Matthew S. T. Clark
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly: The Limitation Of Defendants' Statutory Rights By Judicial Decisions And Legislative Revisions, Matthew S. T. Clark
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
"Meaningful Guidance": Reforming Virginia's Model Jury Instructions On Vileness And Future Dangerousness, Melissa A. Ray
"Meaningful Guidance": Reforming Virginia's Model Jury Instructions On Vileness And Future Dangerousness, Melissa A. Ray
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Evans V. Smith 220 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2000)
Evans V. Smith 220 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Fisher V. Lee 215 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2000)
Fisher V. Lee 215 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Va. Code Ann. S 18.2-10(A) (Michie 2000) Va. Code Ann. S 19.2-264.4(A) (Michie 2000) Va. Code Ann. S 19.2-11.01(A)(3)(C) (Michie 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Johnson V. Commonwealth 529 S.E.2d 769 (Va. 2000)
Johnson V. Commonwealth 529 S.E.2d 769 (Va. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Bailey V. Commonwealth 529 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 2000)
Bailey V. Commonwealth 529 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Burlile V. Commonwealth 531 S.E.2d 26 (Va. Ct. App. 2000)
Burlile V. Commonwealth 531 S.E.2d 26 (Va. Ct. App. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Williams V. Commonwealth 528 S.E.2d 166 (Va. Ct. App. 2000)
Williams V. Commonwealth 528 S.E.2d 166 (Va. Ct. App. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Obtaining Unanimity And A Standard Of Proof On The Vileness Sub-Elements With Apprendi V. New Jersey, M. Kate Calvert
Obtaining Unanimity And A Standard Of Proof On The Vileness Sub-Elements With Apprendi V. New Jersey, M. Kate Calvert
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Due Process Limitations On Victim Impact Evidence, Matthew L. Engle
Due Process Limitations On Victim Impact Evidence, Matthew L. Engle
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Ramdass V. Angelone 120 S. Ct. 2113 (2000)
Ramdass V. Angelone 120 S. Ct. 2113 (2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Williams (Michael) V. Taylor 120 S. Ct. 1479 (2000)
Williams (Michael) V. Taylor 120 S. Ct. 1479 (2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Williams (Terry) V. Taylor 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000)
Williams (Terry) V. Taylor 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Baker V. Corcoran 220 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2000)
Baker V. Corcoran 220 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Barnabei V. Angelone 214 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2000)
Barnabei V. Angelone 214 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Burket V. Angelone 208 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2000)
Burket V. Angelone 208 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Clagett V. Angelone 209 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2000)
Clagett V. Angelone 209 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Hunt V. Mcdade 2000 Wl 219755, At *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2000)
Hunt V. Mcdade 2000 Wl 219755, At *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Oken V. Corcoran 220 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000)
Oken V. Corcoran 220 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
United States V. Barnette 211 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2000)
United States V. Barnette 211 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Abraham V. Commonwealth 526 S.E.2d 277 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) Delaurencio V. Commonwealth No. 2497-98-1, 2000 Wl 781297, At *1 (Va. Ct. App. June 20, 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Tibbs V. Commonwealth 525 S.E.2d 579 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) Winckler V. Commonwealth 531 S.E.2d 45 (Va. Ct. App. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Fishback V. Commonwealth 532 S.E.2d 629 (Va. 2000)
Fishback V. Commonwealth 532 S.E.2d 629 (Va. 2000)
Capital Defense Journal
No abstract provided.
Wilson, V Layne: Bans Press With Police In The Home, But Leaves Media Ride-Alongs Intact, Kathy A. Brown
Wilson, V Layne: Bans Press With Police In The Home, But Leaves Media Ride-Alongs Intact, Kathy A. Brown
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
"Ready? Induce. Sting!": Arguing For The Government's Burden Of Proving Readiness In Entrapment Cases, David D. Tawil
"Ready? Induce. Sting!": Arguing For The Government's Burden Of Proving Readiness In Entrapment Cases, David D. Tawil
Michigan Law Review
For over 100 years the United States judiciary has struggled with the sting and the entrapment defense, examining whether government agents deviously manufacture crimes or merely afford criminals the opportunity to commit them. The sentiments of Justice Holmes were rare for his time, but today they are reflected in a growing sympathy for sting victims. While courts are now more willing than ever to find entrapment, they still differ over the burden of proof that the government must satisfy to overthrow an entrapment defense. Specifically, courts disagree about whether the burden includes proof that the defendant had the ability and …